1
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology
2
3
Mark Everard, Associate Professor of Ecosystem Services, Faculty of Environment
4
and Technology, University of the West of England, Coldharbour Lane, Frenchay
5
Campus, Bristol BS16 1QY, UK1 (T: +44-(0)1249-721208; E:
6
[email protected])
7
8
Nevil Quinn, Associate Professor in Hydrology and Water Management, Faculty of
9
Environment and Technology, University of the West of England, Coldharbour Lane,
10
Frenchay Campus, Bristol BS16 1QY, UK (T: +44-(0)117-3286564 ; E:
11
[email protected])
12
13
14
Abstract
15
16
Fluvial geomorphological forms and processes exert a fundamental influence on
17
riverine processes and functions. They thereby contribute significantly to beneficial
18
services for humanity, yet remain largely undervalued. Major ecosystem service
19
studies to date tend overlook the contribution of geodiversity and geomorphological
20
processes, particularly of fluvial geomorphology, to human wellbeing.
21
management of the water environment which overlooks fundamental driving
22
processes, such as those encompassed by fluvial geomorphology, is inherently
23
unsustainable. Inferences from the literature highlight a broad range of contributions
24
of fluvial processes and forms to the four ecosystem service categories of the
1
Yet
Corresponding author - current address: 2 Hollow Street, Great Somerford, Wiltshire SN15 5JD, UK.
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 1
25
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, contributing to system functioning, resilience
26
and human wellbeing. Fluvial geomorphologists can help society better address
27
sustainability challenges by raising the profile of fluvial forms and processes to
28
continuing human wellbeing and system resilience.
29
three challenges: (1) cross-disciplinary collaboration, addressing interrelations
30
between biodiversity and geodiversity as well as broader scientific disciplines; (2)
31
quantification to an appropriate level and, where possible, mapping of service
32
generation and benefit realisation; and (3) persuasive demonstration projects
33
emphasising how investment in this aspect of the natural environment can enhance
34
service provision and net human benefits. We explore lessons learned from case
35
studies on river rehabilitation, floodplain management, and mapping ecosystem
36
services.
37
outcomes via the language of ecosystem services provides a pathway towards social
38
and economic recognition of relevance, influencing policy-makers about their
39
importance and facilitating their ‘mainstreaming’ into decision-making processes.
40
We also advance a prototype conceptual model, guiding fluvial geomorphologists
41
better to articulate the contribution to a sustainable flow of services through better
42
characterisation of: (1) interactions between anthropogenic pressures and
43
geomorphology; (2) how forms and processes contribute to ecosystem services; and
44
(3) guidance on better management reflecting implications for service provision.
To achieve this, we identify
We contend that linking fluvial geomorphology to societal wellbeing
45
46
47
Keywords
48
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 2
49
Ecosystem services, fluvial geomorphology, river restoration, ecosystem approach,
50
ecosystem assessment
51
52
53
Introduction
54
55
Nature has substantial value to all dimensions of human interest, yet has been
56
largely overlooked (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; UK National
57
Ecosystem Assessment, 2011; HM Government, 2011). Emerging recognition of the
58
structure and functioning of nature in delivering ecosystem services in progressive
59
regulation includes, for example, the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD)
60
requirement to achieve 'good ecological status' as a strategic outcome superseding
61
a former issue-by-issue ‘pressures’ focus.
62
receiving increasing critical attention from institutional and regulatory commentators
63
in policy and law (Ruhl and Salzman, 2007; Kaime, 2013). However, there remains
64
a substantial legacy of legislation, subsidies and other policy levers founded on
65
narrowly focused disciplinary approaches. Framing ‘compliance’ as an end goal,
66
rather than explicitly addressing consequent benefits to people and the integrity and
67
resilience of ecosystems, hampers systemic practice despite clear policy
68
pronouncements in international and national pronouncements. Even for emerging
69
legal instruments with systemic intent like the WFD, entrenched assumptions have
70
tended to reduce Member State implementation to compliance with sets of technical
71
standards, perpetuating historic perceptions of ‘nature’ as a constraint on
72
development rather that the primary asset supporting societal benefits (Everard,
73
2011).
The
basis
of
Ecosystem services concepts are
the
Ecosystem
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 3
Approach
74
(http://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/principles.shtml) and policy statements seeking to
75
embody it (such as HM Government, 2011 in a UK context) is recognition of multiple,
76
substantial values flowing to society from ecosystems and their services.
77
78
The principle of a cascade running from ecosystems to functions, services and
79
thence to multiple beneficial outcomes for people, including feedback loops, is
80
established in the literature (Everard et al., 2009; Haines-Young and Potschin, 2010)
81
and policy-related studies and positions both internationally (Millennium Ecosystem
82
Assessment,
83
Assessment, 2011). Everard (unpublished) favours representation as nested layers,
84
emphasising systemic dependencies and adverse implications from feedback when
85
valuation and trading includes only a subset of ecosystem services (Figure 1).
2005)
and
nationally
(for
example
UK
National
Ecosystem
86
87
88
Figure 1: nested model of connections from ecosystems and markets
89
90
91
Ecosystem services flow from the interaction of living (biodiversity) and non-living
92
(geodiversity) ecosystem elements.
Geodiversity, comprising the variety of
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 4
93
geological and soil materials, the landforms they constitute and the processes which
94
establish and alter them, is being increasingly recognised for its role in sustaining
95
natural capital (Gordon and Barron, 2013; Gray et al., 2013). Fluvial geomorphology
96
is a key element of geodiversity. Landforms and stream-related processes (primarily
97
erosion, transportation and deposition of sediment) influence the evolution of fluvial
98
forms and consequently the physical template of a riverscape, shaping the structure,
99
ecology, functioning and diversity of ecosystems supported therein (Naiman et al.,
100
2005; Stoffel and Wilford, 2012).
Clearly then, geomorphological processes
101
significantly influence the range of ecosystem services that river systems provide.
102
Bergeron and Eyquem (2012) identify specific attributes of geomorphological
103
systems instrumental in relation to ecosystem services (Table 1).
104
105
The contribution of geomorphological processes more generally to social sciences
106
and philosophy is recognised by Downs and Gregory (2004). The role of fluvial
107
geomorphology is also becoming progressively more strongly recognised in river
108
management (Gregory et al. 2014; Wohl 2014). For example, the WFD includes
109
hydrogeomorphological condition as a constituent of ecosystem quality, and certain
110
geomorphological processes are recognised as significant for engineering concerns
111
(for example scour of bridge supports: May et al., 2002). This repositions fluvial
112
geomorphology in a more multidisciplinary context, Newson (2006, p.1606)
113
suggesting that, “Fluvial geomorphology is rapidly becoming centrally involved in
114
practical applications to support the agenda of sustainable river basin management”.
115
Thorndycroft et al. (2008, p.2) adds, “A resurgence in fluvial geomorphology is taking
116
place, fostered for example by its interaction with river engineering, and the
117
availability of new analytical methods, instrumentation and techniques. These have
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 5
118
enabled development of new applications in river management, landscape
119
restoration, hazard studies, river history and geoarchaeology”. More specifically in
120
relation to ecosystem services, Bergeron and Eyquem (2012, p.242) suggest that
121
fluvial geomorphologists have “…a key role to play in their identification and
122
evaluation” and so should become “…more actively involved in this relatively new,
123
yet rapidly expanding and increasingly important, area of applied research”.
124
125
International commitment to the 12 principles of the Ecosystem Approach implicitly
126
includes fluvial geomorphology under Principles 3 (effects on adjacent ecosystems),
127
5 (ecosystem structure and functioning), 6 (ecosystem functioning), 8 (lag and long-
128
term effects) and 12 (involving all relevant scientific disciplines). The wide spectrum
129
of human wellbeing end-points supported by fluvial geomorphology has not yet been
130
explicitly recognised in policy and management frameworks, particularly for
131
supporting,
132
geomorphological processes are overlooked, loss of societal wellbeing may ensue
133
through direct costs (such as river bank erosion) or lost opportunities to benefit from
134
natural processes (for example natural flood management solutions). Understanding
135
systemic connections between ecosystem services provided by geomorphological
136
forms and processes is therefore important if river management is to become
137
optimally sustainable and societally beneficial, including avoiding unforeseen trade-
138
offs (Morris et al., 2008).
regulatory
and
other
non-marketed
services.
Where
fluvial
139
140
This paper addresses the role of fluvial geomorphological processes and forms in
141
the production of ecosystem services, how human activities affect them, suggested
142
policy responses, as well as significant knowledge and policy gaps and research
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 6
143
needs.
Although we use many European examples, we emphasise the generic
144
importance of fluvial geomorphology as a central thread in river management,
145
constituting an integral consideration for the achievement of wider ecosystem service
146
outcomes.
147
148
149
The impact of fluvial forms and processes on human wellbeing
150
151
The contribution of four broad categories of ecosystem services (provisioning,
152
regulatory, cultural and supporting) to multiple constituents of human wellbeing is
153
represented in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) conceptual model
154
(Figure 2).
155
156
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 7
157
158
Figure 2. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) conceptual model of linkages
between ecosystem services and human wellbeing
159
160
161
Some commentators (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007; Turner et al., 2008) contest
162
consideration of supporting services in benefit assessment as they principally
163
constitute functions underpinning more directly exploited and valued ecosystem
164
services. This view influenced the conceptual valuation model underpinning the UK
165
National Ecosystem Assessment (UK NEA, 2011), in which supporting services and
166
some regulatory services are largely recognised as 'intermediate services' (such as
167
soil formation) contributing to 'final services' (e.g. food production) and ‘goods’ (for
168
example saleable food commodities). Everard and Waters (2013) contest this
169
approach, highlighting that exclusion of non-marketed services, far from completely
170
included in market values assigned to traded goods, underpins many current
171
sustainability challenges. Supporting and regulatory services, to which fluvial
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 8
172
geomorphological processes contribute significantly, are therefore explicitly
173
considered here to ensure that potentially important mechanisms supporting human
174
wellbeing are not overlooked.
175
176
Whilst geomorphological processes are explicitly recognised at both global scale
177
(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) and national scale (UK National
178
Ecosystem Assessment, 2011), the role of geodiversity including its functional links
179
with biodiversity is substantially overlooked in both studies (Gordon and Barron,
180
2013; Gray et al., 2013). As the role of specific fluvial processes and forms are not
181
addressed, their contribution to ecosystem service outcomes therefore warrants
182
further study.
183
184
Tables 2-5 describe respectively the four Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)
185
categories of ecosystem services, outlining specific services supported or
186
maintained, whether directly or indirectly, by fluvial geomorphological processes.
187
188
Fluvial geomorphology and the flows of services it supports are also substantially
189
shaped by anthropogenic pressures.
190
human population, exacerbated by escalating consumption pressures from a
191
burgeoning middle class in the developing world imposing food and other supply
192
chain pressures, and increasing urban densities.
193
multiple anthropogenic pressures, including land conversion for agriculture and
194
urbanisation, changes to river flows through surface resource and groundwater
195
abstraction,
modifications
to
river
Significant amongst these is rising global
channels
A wide literature addresses
such
as
impoundments
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 9
and
196
channelization (Gurnell et al., 2007), and alteration of habitat structure through
197
aggregate extraction and management for fishery, navigation and other purposes.
198
199
Further indirect effects of fluvial geomorphological processes and forms arise from
200
cross-habitat interactions (e.g. see Stoffel and Wilford, 2012, for a review of
201
hydrogeomorphic processes and vegetation in upland and geomorphological fan
202
environments). Whilst fluvial forms and processes are most directly related to fresh
203
waters, there are close interlinks between other habitat types (UK National
204
Ecosystem Assessment, 2011). The reciprocal influences between linked habitat
205
types and the services provided by fluvial forms and processes need to be better
206
understood and systematised.
207
208
Degradation of ecosystems and their processes has the potential significantly to
209
erode benefits, or create dis-benefits, of substantial cumulative detriment across the
210
full suite of ecosystem services.
211
relationships between channel form, biodiversity and river ecosystem functioning and
212
human impact, while Elosegi and Sabater (2013) review the effects of common
213
hydromorphological impacts (e.g. channel modification, river flow) on river
214
ecosystem functioning. Disruption of fluvial geomorphological processes is likely to
215
destabilise production of ecosystem services, and hence overall catchment system
216
resilience. In particular, anthropogenic pressures upon fluvial forms and processes
217
warrant further review both as discrete pressures but also how they introduce
218
feedback loops affecting the cross-disciplinary flow of ecosystem services.
219
example, climate change affects the intensity, locality and frequency of rainfall
Elosegi et al. (2010), for instance, synthesise
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 10
For
220
differentially across regions, with secondary effects upon propensity for both drought
221
and flooding (IPCC, 2013; Kendon et al., 2014).
222
223
Impacts on fluvial processes also raise distributional equity issues, for example in a
224
dammed river (generally to harvest the provisioning services of fresh water and
225
energy although sometimes also promoting the cultural services of transport and
226
water-based tourism) that tends to profit an already privileged minority with often
227
substantial overlooked losses at catchment-scale incurred by multiple, often
228
marginalised or otherwise disempowered stakeholder groups (World Commission on
229
Dams, 2000; Everard, 2013).
230
231
Consequently, river and catchment structure and processes need stronger
232
recognition as major contributors to ecosystem service benefits and resilience of
233
catchment systems.
234
235
236
Integrating fluvial geomorphology and ecosystem services: key challenges
237
238
We identify three principal challenges to be addressed to achieve integration of
239
fluvial geomorphological science with ecosystem services, which collectively will
240
elevate the profile of the contributions and importance of riverine processes and
241
forms to human wellbeing.
242
243
Challenge 1: cross-disciplinary collaboration. The success of river management
244
depends critically on improving understanding and explicit modelling of the
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 11
245
relationships between hydrological regime (water, sediment), fluvial processes and
246
the interrelated ecological processes and responses (Arthington et al., 2010) or, as
247
Gordon and Barron (2013, p.54) put it, the “…functional links between biodiversity
248
and geodiversity”. We need to move beyond paradigms and principles to
249
“…practical tools, methods, protocols and models accurately linking volumes and
250
patterns of flow to biodiversity and ecological processes” (Arthington et al. 2010,
251
p.3). This requires aquatic ecologists and fluvial geomorphologists to work together.
252
Gordon and Barron (2013, p.54), for example, make a plea for “…the geodiversity
253
and biodiversity communities to break down disciplinary barriers” and work towards
254
integration.
255
256
Challenge 2: quantification to an appropriate level and mapping. This addresses
257
ecosystem services generated by rivers and floodplains, and links between them and
258
supporting fluvial geomorphological and ecological processes (Arthington et al.,
259
2010; Thorp et al., 2010). Others call for analysis and evaluation of the monetary
260
and non-monetary contribution of geodiversity to “…ensure natural capital is not
261
undervalued through its omission” (Gordon and Barron, 2013, p.54). Although
262
ecosystem services supported by hydrological processes have received attention for
263
some time (Ruhl, 1999; Postel, 2002; Postel, 2003; Braumann et al., 2007), case
264
studies showing a continuum of predictive and functional understanding of
265
geomorphological and ecosystem processes through to quantified ecosystem
266
services are uncommon, and comparative evaluation of alternate approaches is rarer
267
(Bagstad et al., 2014). Techniques for evaluating services underpinned by fluvial
268
geomorphology are therefore under-developed (Thorp et al., 2010). Indeed, lack of
269
practical tools and incentives to use ecosystem services concepts has been cited as
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 12
270
a reason why some Australian catchment managers have not incorporated them into
271
routine management and planning (Plant and Ryan, 2013). Although Plant and Prior
272
(2014) propose a useful framework for incorporation of ecosystem services into
273
statutory water allocation, this does not address the underlying needs referred to
274
above. Everard and Waters (2013) provide a practical ecosystem services
275
assessment method consistent with UK government guidance, emphasising that
276
detailed monetised studies are not essential to illustrate the diversity of values
277
provided by natural places and management schemes.
278
279
Challenge 3: demonstration. A third challenge is production of persuasive projects
280
demonstrating how investment in the natural environment can result in enhanced
281
benefits and service provision (Gordon and Barron, 2013).
282
283
The following sub-sections explore case studies illustrating how these three
284
challenges might be met.
285
286
287
(i) River rehabilitation and ecosystem services
288
289
River rehabilitation has been seen as fundamental to improving biodiversity,
290
emerging as a distinct discipline over recent decades and giving rise to projects
291
across the globe seeking to demonstrate improvements in biota, habitat and/or
292
cultural value. More recent attempts have been made to quantify the impact of these
293
initiatives in terms of the quality and value of river-based ecosystem services. For
294
example, dead wood is an important component of natural channels, so lack of it
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 13
295
impacts nutrient and matter cycling, simplifies habitat and reduces biodiversity
296
(Hofmann and Hering, 2000; Elosegi et al., 2007). A restoration project in Spain
297
involving re-introduction of dead wood resulted in a 10- to 100-fold increase in
298
stream-derived economic benefits, equating to an annual benefit of €1.8 per metre of
299
restored river length with benefits exceeding costs over realistic time-frames (Acuña
300
et al., 2013). These benefits arose due to improved fishing supported by improved
301
habitat, better water quality consequent from increased water residence time, higher
302
retention of organic and inorganic matter, and reduced erosion. Such case studies
303
provide a framework for quantifying benefits, demonstrating how investing in the
304
natural environment can deliver multiple ecosystem services.
305
306
Although ecosystem service enhancement can be used to justify investment in river
307
restoration, Dufour et al. (2011) suggest that the concept can also reposition river
308
restoration on a more objective-based footing, framing desired future state outcomes
309
in terms of goals for natural system integrity and human well-being as components of
310
a desired future state rather than more simply as change relative to a notional ‘pre-
311
disturbance’ condition. Thorp et al. (2010, p.68) also acknowledge that “…a focus
312
on ecosystem services may also promote alternative river management options,
313
including river rehabilitation”. Tailoring schemes to socially desired ecosystem
314
services may optimise the benefits and inform the priorities for river rehabilitation.
315
316
Gilvear et al. (2013) demonstrate an innovative approach to optimising the outcomes
317
of river rehabilitation in relation to delivery of multiple ecosystem services. Rather
318
than quantifying them in monetary terms, levels of ecosystem services delivered are
319
assessed on the basis of an expert-derived scoring system reflecting how the
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 14
320
rehabilitation measure contributes to reinstating important geomorphological,
321
hydrological and ecological processes and functions over time. The approach
322
enables a long-term (>25 years) score to be calculated and provides a mechanism
323
for discriminating between alternative proposals. Use of relative measures of
324
ecosystem service rather than monetary values is interesting in relation to Plant and
325
Ryan’s (2013, p.44) observation that “…a well-facilitated process of group learning
326
and reasoning about nature’s values that is grounded in local knowledge and
327
experience may ultimately better approximate the ‘true’ value of a region’s natural
328
capital that traditional positivist approaches aimed at comprehensive quantification
329
and valuation of ecosystem services”.
330
331
332
(ii) Floodplain management and ecosystem services
333
334
Posthumus et al. (2010) provide an example of the utility of using ecosystem
335
services in floodplain management. Six floodplain management scenarios2 were
336
identified based on different priorities for land use in lowland floodplain areas.
337
Fourteen goods or ecosystem services (column 2 of Table 6) arising from each land
338
use were then semi-quantified on the basis of an indicator (Table 6), many of which
339
are strongly supported by fluvial geomorphological processes. Results were
340
normalised and depicted using radar plots, allowing the conflicts and synergies
341
between the range of ecosystems services under the different land uses to be made
342
explicit. This approach provides an example of how semi-quantitative methods can
2
(i) current use (ii) intensive agricultural production (iii) agri-environment (seeking to enhance
biodiversity within predominantly agricultural land (iv) biodiversity (v) floodwater storage and (vi)
income (seeking to maximise income derived from the land)
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 15
343
be used to support decisions, better internalising the contribution of fluvial
344
geomorphology in operational practice.
345
346
347
(iii) Mapping ecosystem services
348
349
Mapping ecosystem services has value in that it identifies areas providing a high
350
level of service, which therefore require targeted management strategies to retain
351
this level of service provision (Maynard et al., 2010 and 2012; Martinez-Holmes and
352
Balvanere, 2012).
353
354
Thorp et al. (2010) suggest the level of ecosystem service provided by river
355
environments is directly related to their hydrogeomorphic complexity. They define
356
functional process zones (FPZs) and describe a method for mapping them involving
357
up to 15 catchment, valley and channel variables. Hydrogeomorphic complexity is
358
thus related to habitat and niche complexity, influencing a river’s biocomplexity and
359
consequent ecosystem services. Thorp et al. (2010) acknowledge that research
360
relating ecosystem services to hydrogeomorphic structure is still emerging, but
361
provide an indication of the relationship between six contrasting types of FPZs and
362
their potential level of ecosystem service provision (Table 7). Further development
363
of mapping relationships between hydrogeomorphic zones and levels of ecosystem
364
service provision is required.
365
366
Another influential case study was associated with end-of-life coastal defences in
367
Wareham, Dorset (England), in which stakeholders developed consensus in tabular
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 16
368
form about the ‘likelihood of impact’ in semi-quantitative terms for a range of
369
ecosystem services likely to arise from different management options (Tinch and
370
Provins, 2007). This example has been used by UK Government (Defra, 2007) as
371
an example of where this form of mapping can avert the need for expensive, time-
372
consuming and (in this case) unnecessary cost-benefit assessment to determine a
373
favoured option.
374
375
Another benefit of mapping service provision is that it highlights discontinuities in
376
supply and demand of ecosystem services. For example, Stürk et al. (2014)
377
illustrate a pan-European spatial mapping approach comparing ecosystem service
378
supply and demand focussing on flood regulation services. This approach could
379
help identify priority areas for investment through conservation and land use
380
planning. Based on the priorities of Pagella and Sinclair (2014), we suggest there
381
are four key areas for development with respect to mapping ecosystem services
382
underpinned by fluvial geomorphological processes: (i) maps at appropriate scales
383
and resolutions connecting field scale management options and river ecosystem
384
services; (ii) definition of landscape boundaries and flows and pathways from source
385
to receptor; (iii) approaches to calculating and presenting synergies and trade-offs
386
amongst and between services; and (iv) incorporating the stakeholder perspectives
387
to help deepen understanding, bound uncertainty and improve legitimacy. However,
388
at least in the UK, a consistent and generally accepted method of detailed mapping
389
river attributes and functions is lacking, beyond the rapid assessment tool River
390
Hydromorphology Assessment Technique (RHAT) devised for monitoring under the
391
EU WFD (Water Framework Directive UK TAG). Other tools addressing at least a
392
subset of relevant attributes of fluvial geomorphology are available and have been
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 17
393
used in previous surveys, including for example fluvial audits for river conservation
394
(Natural England, 2008), River Habitat Survey (http://www.riverhabitatsurvey.org/),
395
River Corridor Survey (National Rivers Authority, 1992) and PHABSIM (Milhous and
396
Waddle, 2012) as an example of habitat suitability modelling. An opportunity to map
397
and extend awareness of ecosystem services generated by river geomorphology is
398
presented by Large and Gilvear (2012) in the form of a methodology for reach-based
399
river ecosystem service assessment of eight ecosystem functions using remote
400
sensing using Google Earth remote sensing data, drawing theoretical linkages
401
between 18 riverscape fluvial features, attributes and land cover types, observable
402
and measurable on Google Earth, and resultant river ecosystem service delivery.
403
404
Learning from how the above case studies inform the three principal challenges is
405
summarised in Table 8. Cumulatively, these highlight the importance of addressing
406
the major contributions of fluvial geomorphology to multiple ecosystem service
407
outcomes, which need to be represented transparently to affected stakeholder
408
groups who need, in turn, to be involved in equitable and resilient governance.
409
410
411
Discussion
412
413
The change of paradigm towards ecosystems thinking requires the multiple societal
414
values, both economic and non-economic, of nature and its processes to be better
415
articulated and integrated into decision-making across policy areas, including
416
recognition of the broader ecosystem service contributions of fluvial
417
geomorphological and other significant processes at both local and distant spatial
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 18
418
and temporal scales (Seppelt, 2011). Closer integration, in both science and policy,
419
of the living (biodiversity) and non-living (geodiversity) elements of ecosystems is
420
necessary to support decisions incorporating the resilience, functioning and
421
capacities of the natural world that sustain human wellbeing. Connecting underlying
422
natural forms and functions with wellbeing end-points is essential if the value of
423
fluvial geomorphology is to be understood and mainstreamed into operational
424
practice. Recognition of the value of ecosystem services provided by river forms and
425
processes also helps overcome the historic perception of ‘nature as threat’ (flooding,
426
disease, drowning) and its necessary transition into ‘nature as fundamental capital’
427
that is implicit in the Ecosystem Approach. Wohl (2014, p.278) voice concerns that
428
fluvial geomorphology “…also faces some serious challenges, however, in
429
maintaining societal relevance in a human-dominated environment”, and by Gregory
430
et al. (2014, p.479) that it “…needs to raise its profile in contributing to major
431
questions in society and to living with environmental change”. We contend that
432
linking fluvial geomorphology to societal wellbeing outcomes via the language of
433
ecosystem services provides a pathway towards social and economic recognition of
434
relevance, influencing policy-makers about their importance and facilitating their
435
‘mainstreaming’ into decision-making processes. Furthermore, consideration of all
436
interconnected ecosystem service end-points stemming from geomorphological
437
processes and forms can lead to more robust, socially valuable and equitable
438
outcomes, the language of benefits to people also constituting a more intuitive and
439
systemic means for communicating across stakeholder groups.
440
441
Outcomes of this policy influence should include the framing of new regulatory
442
instruments and subsidies in terms of systemic wellbeing outcomes. It should also
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 19
443
promote reinterpretation of existing instruments, recognising their potential for to
444
deliver broader societal values. Everard et al. (2012) and Everard and McInnes
445
(2013) emphasise that refocusing on the purpose of legacy legislation, rather than
446
slavish adherence to regulatory clauses in isolation, can lead to more systemic
447
practice, especially if supported by government guidance. Examples relevant to
448
fluvial geomorphology include refocusing on the wider societal values stemming from
449
achieving ‘good ecological status’ in the WFD, broader societal benefits from cross-
450
compliance requirements under UK, EU and other agri-environment agreements via
451
their effects on fluvial geomorphology, and assessing the broader outcomes of in-
452
channel and riparian construction projects. Distributional considerations are also
453
important, for example where the beneficiaries of ecosystem services such as
454
climate and flood regulation may be remote from the point of resource ownership,
455
exploitation and service production. Everard et al. (2014) consequently call for
456
greater coherence between higher-level international and national commitments to
457
taking an Ecosystem Approach and their practical translation into compulsions and
458
inducements within the diverse formal and informal policy environment that shapes
459
the decisions of often private resource owners, which may make a significant
460
contribution to optimising benefits across society.
461
462
Clearly documented, if possible quantified, case studies would also promote better
463
understanding and demonstration of the contribution of fluvial geomorphological
464
forms and processes to beneficial end-points, and their integral interdependencies
465
with biological processes. This necessarily entails assessing implications for the full
466
spectrum of ecosystem services, importantly including hard-to-measure services
467
which, if overlooked, may continue to generate negative unintended externalities
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 20
468
eroding net societal value. Techniques to derive indicative values for all ecosystem
469
services are reviewed by Everard (2012) and articulated by Everard and Waters
470
(2013), including for example linkages to surrogate markets, travel cost analysis, and
471
'willingness to pay'.
472
perhaps most, services, but can be illustrative of relative significance (large or small,
473
positive or negative) of services helping highlight potential unforeseen trade-offs and
474
also supporting more inclusive, equitable and sustainable decisions.
These methods may not provide market values for all, or
475
476
Recognising the significance of fluvial geomorphology for all ecosystem services and
477
their associated and equally interconnected beneficiaries is essential for reliable
478
mapping, valuation and effective management of services. Novel policy instruments,
479
including more systemically framed emerging legislation and market-based
480
instruments, may better connect ecosystem resources and processes with their final
481
beneficiaries.
482
markets for formerly overlooked services, potentially opening novel funding routes
483
wherein service beneficiaries who may not traditionally have recognised the benefits
484
they receive from fluvial geomorphology, such as transport infrastructure managers,
485
can invest cost-effectively in processes supporting their interests.
For example, payments for ecosystem services (PES) can create
486
487
Assessment of gaps in the policy environment is an additional research need
488
building on, for example, analysis of 'response options' within the UK National
489
Ecosystem
490
Assessment, 2014) and highlighting opportunities for integration of fluvial
491
geomorphological considerations into wider sectoral interests.
492
private rights on floodplains and other catchment land may constrain freedoms, or
Assessment
Follow-On
programme
(UK
National
Ecosystem
Issues such as
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 21
493
necessitate novel approaches, to protect important processes yielding public
494
benefits. To promote more coherent policy formulation, we advance the conceptual
495
model at Figure 3. This model clearly needs to be further developed to account for
496
the full range of contributions of fluvial processes and forms to human wellbeing and
497
the feedbacks from society, but serves to illustrate and communicate (based on
498
already accepted systems models outlined in the Introduction to this paper) the
499
specific place at which fluvial geomorphology needs to be considered as a
500
contributor to the sustainable flow of services, namely:
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
1. Better characterisation of interactions between anthropogenic pressures and
fluvial geomorphological forms and processes;
2. Better characterisation of how fluvial geomorphological forms and processes
contribute directly and indirectly to ecosystem services; and
3. Guidance
on
better
management
reflecting
implications
for
fluvial
geomorphology and consequent service production.
508
509
510
511
512
513
Figure 3: Skeleton model of the influence of fluvial processes and forms on human
wellbeing with feedback loops. Dotted boxes highlight areas of geomorphological
interactions, and shaded boxes identify where further research and guidance is
required by fluvial geomorphologists
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 22
514
515
Management of the water environment which overlooks fundamental driving
516
processes, such as those encompassed by fluvial geomorphology, as well as their
517
contributions to system resilience and human wellbeing, is by definition unlikely to be
518
sustainable. Clarity about the connections between fluvial geomorphology and
519
ecosystem service outcomes is crucial. This exploration of the benefits of linking
520
fluvial geomorphology with the ecosystem services framework also serves to
521
demonstrate the wider benefits of the Ecosystem Approach, to which many countries
522
have been signatories since 1995, in recognising and integrating the many, long-
523
overlooked values of natural systems centrally in decision-making.
524
525
526
References
527
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 23
528
Acuña V, Díez J, Flores L, Meleason M, Elosegi A. 2013. Does it make economic
529
sense to restore rivers for their ecosystem services? Journal of Applied Ecology 50 :
530
988-997.
531
Arthington A, Naiman R, McClain M, Nilsson C. 2010. Preserving the biodiversity and
532
ecological services of rivers: new challenges and research opportunities. Freshwater
533
Biology 55 : 1-16.
534
535
Bagstad K, Semmens D, Winthrop R. 2014. Comparing approaches to spatially
536
explicit ecosystem service modelling: a case study from the San Pedro River,
537
Arizona. Ecosystem Services (in press).
538
539
Bergeron N, Eyquem J. 2012. Geomorphology and gravel-bed river ecosystem
540
services:
541
Environments. Church M, Biron PM, Roy AG (eds). John Wiley & Sons.
542
DOI: 10.1002/9781119952497.ch20.
Workshop
outcomes.
In:
Gravel-bed
Rivers:
Processes,
Tools,
543
544
Bolund P, Hunhammar S. 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological
545
Economics 29 : 293-301.
546
547
Boyd J, Banzhaf S. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized
548
environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics 63 : 26-28.
549
550
Brauman K, Daily G, Duarte T, Mooney H. 2007. The nature and value of ecosystem
551
services: an overview of highlighting hydrologic services. Annual Review of
552
Environment and Resources 32 : 67-98.
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 24
553
554
Defra. 2007. An Introductory Guide to Valuing Ecosystem Services. Department for
555
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London.
556
557
Dufour S, Rollet A, Oszwald J, de Sartre X. 2011. Ecosystem services, an
558
opportunity to improve restoration in river corridors? Available online: http://hal.univ-
559
nantes.fr/hal-00587959/ [Last accessed: 18th October 2014].
560
561
Elosegi A, Díez J, Mutz M. 2010. Effects of hydromorphological integrity on
562
biodiversity and functioning of river systems. Hydrobiologia 657 : 199:215.
563
564
Elosegi A, Díez J, Pozo J. 2007. Contribution of dead wood to the carbon flux in
565
forested streams. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 32 : 1219-1228.
566
Elosegi A, Sabater S. 2013. Effects of hydromorphological impacts on river
567
ecosystem functioning: a review and suggestions for assessing ecological impacts.
568
Hydrobiologia 712 : 129:143.
569
570
Everard M. 2004. Investing in Sustainable Catchments. The Science of the Total
571
Environment 324/1-3 : 1-24.
572
573
Everard M. 2011.
Why does ‘good ecological status’ matter?
Water and
574
Environment Journal 26(2) : 165-174. DOI:10.1111/j.1747-6593.2011.00273.x
575
576
Everard M. 2012. 25. What have Rivers Ever Done for us? Ecosystem Services and
577
River Systems. In: Boon PJ, Raven PJ (eds). River Conservation and Management,
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 25
578
Wiley, Chichester. 313-324.
579
580
Everard M. 2013. The Hydropolitics of Dams: Engineering or Ecosystems? Zed
581
Books, London.
582
583
Everard M, Colvin JD, Mander M, Dickens C, Chimbuya S. 2009. Integrated
584
catchment value systems. Journal of Water Resource and Protection 3 : 174-187.
585
586
Everard M, Dick J, Kendall H, Smith RI, Slee RW, Couldrick L, Scott M, MacDonald
587
C. 2014. Improving coherence of ecosystem service provision between scales.
588
Ecosystem Services. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.04.006.
589
590
Everard M, Harrington R, McInnes RJ. 2012. Facilitating implementation of
591
landscape-scale integrated water management: the integrated constructed wetland
592
concept. Ecosystem Services 2 : 27–37. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.08.001.
593
594
Everard M, McInnes RJ. 2013. Systemic solutions for multi-benefit water and
595
environmental management. The Science of the Total Environment 461-62 : 170-
596
179.
597
598
Everard M, Waters RD. 2013. Ecosystem services assessment: How to do one in
599
practice (Version 1, October 2013). Institution of Environmental Sciences, London.
600
(https://www.ies-uk.org.uk/resources/ecosystem-services-assessment, accessed
601
18th October 2014.)
602
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 26
603
Gilvear DJ, Spray CS, Casas-Mulet R. 2013. River rehabilitation for the delivery of
604
multiple ecosystem services at the river network scale. Journal of Environmental
605
Management 125 : 30-40.
606
607
Gordon JE, Barron JE. 2013. The role of geodiversity in delivering ecosystem
608
services and benefits in Scotland. Scottish Journal of Geology 49 : 41-58.
609
610
Gray M. 2011. Other nature: Geodiversity and geosystem services. Environmental
611
Conservation 38 : 271-274.
612
613
Gray M, Gordon JE, Brown EJ. 2013. Geodiversity and the ecosystem approach: the
614
contribution of geoscience in delivering integrated environmental management.
615
Proceedings of the Geologist’s Association 124 : 659-673.
616
617
Gregory KJ, Lane SN, Ashworth PJ, Downs PW, Kirkby MJ, Viles HA. 2014.
618
Communicating geomorphology: global challenges for the twenty-first century. Earth
619
Surface Processes and Landforms 39 : 476-486.
620
621
Gurnell A, Lee M, Souch C. 2007. Urban rivers: hydrology, geomorphology, ecology
622
and opportunities for change. Geography Compass 1/5 : 1118-137.
623
624
Haines-Young RH, Potschin MP. 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem
625
services and human well-being In: Raffaelli D, Frid C (eds). Ecosystem Ecology: a
626
new synthesis. BES Ecological Reviews Series, CUP, Cambridge.
627
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 27
628
Hill B, Kolka R, McCormick F, Starry M. 2014. A synoptic survey of ecosystem
629
services from headwater catchments in the United States. Ecosystem Services 7 :
630
106-115.
631
632
HM Government. 2011. The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature. London:
633
The Stationary Office.
634
635
Hoffman A, Hering D. 2000. Wood-associated macroinvertebrate fauna in central
636
European streams. International Review of Hydrobiology 85 : 25-48.
637
IPCC. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
638
Working Group to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
639
Climate Change. Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J,
640
Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
641
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp.
642
643
Jones I. 2013. The impact of extreme events of freshwater ecosystems. Ecological
644
Issues 2013. British Ecological Society, London.
645
646
Kaime T. 2013. Symposium Foreward: Framing the Law and Policy for Ecosystem
647
Services. Transnational Environmental Law 2 : 211-216.
648
649
Kendon EJ, Roberts NM, Fowler, HJ, Roberts, MJ, Chan SC, Senior CA. 2014.
650
Heavier summer downpours with climate change revealed by weather forecast
651
resolution model. Nature Climate Change 4 : 570-576. DOI:10.1038/NCLIMATE2258
652
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 28
653
Large ARG, Gilvear DJ. 2014. Using Google Earth, a virtual-globe imaging platform,
654
for ecosystem services-based river assessment. River Research and Applications.
655
DOI: 10.1002/rra.2798.
656
657
Loomis J, McTernan J. 2014. Economic value of instream flow for non-commercial
658
whitewater boating using recreation demand and contingent valuation methods.
659
Environmental Management 53 : 510-519.
660
661
Martínez-Harms M, Balvanera P. 2012. Methods for mapping ecosystem service
662
supply: a review. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services
663
and Management 8 : 17-25.
664
May RWP, Ackers JC, Kirby AM. 2002. Manual on scour of bridges and other
665
hydraulic structures. CIRIA Manual C551. Construction Industry Research and
666
Information Association, London.
667
668
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems & Human Well-being:
669
Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC.
670
671
Morris J, Bailey AP, Lawson CS, Leeds-Harrison PB, Alsop D, Vivash R. 2008. The
672
economic dimension of integrating flood management and agri-environment through
673
washland creation. A case study from Somerset, England. Journal of Environmental
674
Management 88: 372-381.
675
676
Maynard S, James D, Davidson A. 2010. The development of an ecosystem services
677
framework for South East Queensland. Environmental Management 45 : 881-895.
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 29
678
679
Maynard S, James D, Davidson A. 2012. An adaptive participatory approach for
680
developing an ecosystem services framework for South East Queensland, Australia.
681
International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management
682
7(3) : 182-189.
683
684
Milhous RT, Waddle TJ. 2012. Physical Habitat Simulation (PHABSIM) Software for
685
Windows (v.1.5.1). Fort Collins, CO: USGS Fort Collins Science Center.
686
687
Naiman RJ, Decamps H, McClain M. 2005. Riparia, ecology, conservation and
688
management of streamside communities. San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.
689
690
National Rivers Authority. 1992. River Corridor Surveys. Conservation Technical
691
Handbook Number 1. National Rivers Authority, Bristol.
692
693
Natural England. 2008. Geomorphological assessment of riverine SSSIs for the
694
strategic planning of river restoration. Natural England Research Report NERR013.
695
www.publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/50038.
696
697
Pagella F, Sinclair F. 2014. Development and use of a typology of mapping tools to
698
assess their fitness for supporting management of ecosystem service provision.
699
Landscape Ecology 29 : 383-399.
700
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 30
701
Plant R, Ryan P. 2013. Ecosystem services as a practicable concept for natural
702
resources management: some lessons from Australia. International Journal of
703
Biodiversity Science, Ecosystems Services and Management 9(1) : 44-53.
704
705
Postel S. 2002. Rivers of life the challenge of restoring health to freshwater
706
ecosystems. Water Science and Technology 45(11) : 3-8.
707
708
Postel S. 2003. Securing water for people, crops and ecosystems: new mindset and
709
new priorities. Natural Resources Forum 27(2) : 98-100.
710
711
Posthumus H, Rouquette J, Morris J, Gowing D, Hess T. 2010. A framework for the
712
assessment of ecosystem goods and services; a case study on lowland floodplains
713
in England. Ecological Economics 69 : 1510-1523.
714
715
Ruhl JB. 1999. The (political) science of watershed management in the ecosystem
716
age. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35(3) : 520-526.
717
718
Ruhl JB, Salzman J. 2007. The law and policy beginnings of ecosystem services.
719
Journal of Land Use 22(2) :157-172.
720
721
Seppelt R, Dormann CF, Eppink FV, Lautenbach S, Schmidt S. 2011. A quantitative
722
review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead.
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 31
723
Journal of Applied Ecology 48(3) : 630–636. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-
724
2664.2010.01952.x.
725
726
Stoffel M, Wilford DJ. 2012. Hydrogeomorphic processes and vegetation:
727
disturbance, process histories, dependencies and interactions. Earth Surface
728
Processes and Landforms 37 : 9-22.
729
Stürk J, Poortinga A, Verburg P. 2014. Mapping ecosystem services: the supply and
730
demand of flood regulation services in Europe. Ecological Indicators 38 : 198-211.
731
732
Thorndycroft VR, Benito G, Gregory KJ. 2008. Fluvial geomorphology: a perspective
733
on current status and methods. Geomorphology 98 : 2-12.
734
735
Thorp J, Flotemersch J, Delong M, Casper A, Thoms M, Ballantyne F, Williams B,
736
O’Neill J, Haase S. 2010. Linking ecosystem services, rehabilitation and river
737
hydrogeomorphology. BioScience 60 : 67-74.
738
739
Tinch R, Provins A. 2007. Policy appraisal and the Enviornment: Wareham Managed
740
Realignment Case Study. Eftec report to Defra. Eftec, London.
741
742
Turner RK, Georgiou S, Fisher B. 2008. Valuing Ecosystem Services: The Case of
743
Multi-functional Wetlands. Earthscan, London.
744
745
UK National Ecosystem Assessment. 2011. The UK National Ecosystem
746
Assessment: Synthesis of the Key Findings. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC.
747
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 32
748
UK National Ecosystem Assessment. 2014. The UK National Ecosystem
749
Assessment: Synthesis of the Key Findings. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC, LWEC, UK.
750
751
Water Framework Directive UK TAG. 2014. River Hydromorphology Assessment
752
Technique
753
assessment-technique-rhat.
(RHAT).
http://www.wfduk.org/resources/river-hydromorphology-
754
755
Wohl E. 2014. Time and the rivers flowing: Fluvial geomorphology since 1960.
756
Geomorphology 216 : 263-282.
757
758
World Commission on Dams. 2000. Dams and Development: A New Framework for
759
Better Decision-making. Earthscan, London.
760
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 33
761
Table 1: Attributes of fluvial geomorphological systems important for generating or
762
contributing to ecosystem services. Bergeron and Eyquem (2012) defined these as
763
‘ecosystem services’; we re-define these as ‘attributes’, for example water quantity is an
764
attribute that defines the ecosystem service of flow regulation.
ATTRIBUTE
DESCRIPTION
Water quantity
Channel flow is a defining feature of fluvial systems, from which
(amount of flow)
society derives the significant benefit of water supply.
Fluvial geomorphology and catchment-scale geomorphological
Water delivery (timing
and hydrological processes play key roles in determining the
of flow)
timing of flow, including ameliorating flood impacts by attenuation
and supplying baseflow during droughts.
Physical
Fluvial geomorphological processes determine water velocity,
turbulence, temperature, conductivity and clarity (suspended
sediment), all of which influence other ecosystem processes,
directly or indirectly contributing to various ecosystems services.
Chemical
Processes occurring in the fluvial environment contribute to
Water quality
maintaining dissolved oxygen as well as the chemical character
and odour of river water.
Biological
Fluvial geomorphological processes involving the interaction of
water and sediment with channel morphology generate a diversity
of habitats supporting microorganisms, plants, invertebrates, fish,
wildlife and their associated genetic diversity, all contributing to
ecosystem health or biotic integrity.
Sediment
Suspended sediment load
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 34
characteristics
Fluvial geomorphological processes determine the size fraction,
amount and timing of erosional and transport processes,
influencing primary production in the water column and the redistribution of sediment in the watercourse and floodplain.
Bed substrate
Fluvial geomorphological processes determine the bed material
size, amount, distribution and form (bars and bedforms)
determining the nature of benthic habitat, influencing the
characteristics of water flowing over it.
Channel and floodplain morphology
Fluvial geomorphological processes determine the channel
gradient, dimensions, form, pattern and associated depositional
(e.g. point bar, floodplain) and erosional (e.g. cut bank) features:
key attributes of the template of a river valley providing the
Morphological
physical basis for habitat and associated ecosystem services.
characteristics
Bed stability
Characteristics of the bed substrate, together with flow conditions
and sediment load, determine bed stability.
Bank stability
Characteristics of the bank, together with flow conditions and
sediment load, determine bank stability.
765
766
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 35
767
Table 2: Direct and indirect contributions of fluvial geomorphological processes to specific
768
supporting ecosystem services (Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999; Thorp et al., 2010; Dufour et
769
al., 2011; Gordon and Barron 2013; Hill et al., 2014)
Supporting services comprise processes essential for maintaining the integrity and
functioning of ecosystems and their capacity to supply other more directly exploited
services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).
ECOSYSTEM SERVICE
CONTRIBUTION BY FLUVIAL GEOMORPHOLOGICAL
PROCESSES
Indirect: continuous circulation of water through exchanges
between the geosphere, atmosphere and living organisms
Hydrological cycling
supports ecosystem functioning and integrity, and production
of ecosystem services.
Indirect: fluvial geomorphology contributes to rock cycling and
to soil formation and fertility, through accretion processes on
floodplains and depositional structures in rivers. This
Rock cycling and soil
provides a physical template for habitat including the diversity
formation
of substratum and corresponding interaction with flow
conditions, the water column and surface, and the riparian
zone. Soil in turn constitutes a growing medium upon which
many provisioning and other services depend.
Indirect: fluvial processes result in the delivery of sediment to
Sediment supply
river habitats, deltas and estuaries, supplying nutrients and
habitat to support commercially important fisheries.
Indirect: geodiversity provides the physical template
Habitat creation and
supporting a diversity of habitats and species. Fluvial
maintenance
geomorphological processes support and maintain the
diversity and dynamism of these habitats and related
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 36
ecosystem services, including driving ecological succession
and consequent vegetative and topographical complexity.
Indirect: photosynthesis provides oxygen, and primary
Photosynthesis and
production supports plant growth and the functioning and
primary production
integrity of other ecosystem services.
Indirect: continuous circulation of important elements (e.g.
carbon, nitrogen) and nutrients through exchanges between
Biogeochemical cycling
the geosphere, atmosphere and living organisms supports
the functioning and integrity of other ecosystem services.
Floodplains and river terraces provide a platform for buildings
Building platform
and infrastructure (e.g. bridges), providing economic benefits.
Rivers have historically provided a conduit for waste disposal,
and remain important for water supply and wastewater
Waste disposal and water
treatment. River valleys provide suitable sites for water
storage
storage and hydroelectric power systems, usually facilitated
by dams. More locally, short-cycle recycling of water within a
diversity of habitats maintains water resources in landscapes.
770
771
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 37
772
Table 3: Direct and indirect contributions of fluvial geomorphological processes to specific
773
regulatory ecosystem services (Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999; Thorp et al., 2010; Dufour et
774
al., 2011; Gordon and Barron 2013; Hill et al., 2014)
Regulatory services include those processes moderating climate, air and water quality,
and other facets of the natural environment (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).
ECOSYSTEM SERVICE
CONTRIBUTION BY FLUVIAL GEOMORPHOLOGICAL
PROCESSES
Direct: structure of the geomorphological system influences
magnitude and timing of flows, and habitat complexity can
Water regulation
help avert damage to ecosystems and human benefits
(Jones, 2013).
Direct: the geomorphological system influences water quality
(e.g. oxygenation over riffles), and the medium provides
dilution, improvement of runoff quality via processes in the
riparian zone (e.g. denitrification and sediment trapping).
Water purification (N and P sequestration and denitrification)
Water quality regulation
in headwater catchments of the USA was valued at $13,414
and waste treatment
/ha/yr (Hill et al., 2014).
Direct: catchment habitat diversity influences the service of
water regulation through moderation and buffering of water
flows (Ruhl and Salzman, 2007), buffering flood peaks and
droughts.
Direct: protection of people and property from flood impacts
through floodplain attenuation of peaks by providing storage
Natural hazard regulation
and slowing flow, and hence greater resilience against
extreme and unpredictable events.
Pollination, disease
Indirect: riparian vegetation, a secondary effect of
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 38
regulation and pest
geomorphological diversity, provides habitat for pollinators
regulation
and many host important pest predators. They can also
attenuate disease-causing organisms, though may host some
disease vectors.
Indirect: carbon sequestration by riparian vegetation makes
an important contribution to climate regulation. Carbon
sequestration in headwater catchments of the USA was
valued at $278 /ha/yr (Hill et al., 2014).
Air quality and climate
Indirect: riparian vegetation supported by valley and
floodplain soils ameliorates locate climate, especially in cities
(Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999).
Indirect: topographic effects from gemorphological features
and associated vegetation play a role in regulating air quality.
Direct: geomorphological structures and processes influence
sediment erosion and accretion patterns, averting loss of
Erosion regulation
habitat, preventing siltation of downstream infrastructure and
maintaining important sediment feed processes, modified by
the stabilisation effects of vegetation.
775
776
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 39
777
Table 4: Direct and indirect contributions of fluvial geomorphological processes to specific
778
cultural ecosystem services (Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999; Thorp et al., 2010; Dufour et
779
al., 2011; Gordon and Barron 2013; Hill et al., 2014)
Cultural services comprise the recreational, aesthetic and spiritual benefits that people
derive from ecosystems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).
ECOSYSTEM SERVICE
CONTRIBUTION BY FLUVIAL GEOMORPHOLOGICAL
PROCESSES
Direct: river systems support multiple recreation and tourism
opportunities, some strongly linked to fluvial geomorphology
(e.g. white-water rafting, kayaking). In a survey of these users
in Colorado, USA, Loomis and McTernan (2013) found that
willingness to pay and number of likely visits over the season
Recreation and tourism
depended strongly on river discharge (e.g. $55 per person
per day and 1.63 trips at 300CFS vs. USD$97 and 14 trips at
1900CFS). Maximum marginal value in the area exceeded
that for irrigation. In cities, rivers can be an accessible setting
for recreation (Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999)
Direct: river systems have featured strongly in folklore and
Spiritual and religious
legend throughout time. Many cultures ascribe spiritual or
values and cultural
religious values to rivers, or specific locations or
meanings
geomorphological characteristics (e.g. confluences, springs,
waterfalls, pools)
Direct: river systems are considered special and beautiful
Sense of place and
places; geomorphological features or processes often
aesthetic values
contribute to this sense of place (e.g. waterfalls, cascades)
Direct: river systems provide an opportunity for formal and
Educational values
informal education, offering personal and life-long learning
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 40
advantages and improved societal knowledge, skills and
understanding.
Direct: social groups can be organised around river systems
(e.g. river restoration groups, hikers, youth groups,
Social relations
birdwatchers, anglers), providing opportunities for social
interaction offering health and welfare benefits (to individuals
and communities).
Direct: river valleys, river scenery and waterscapes provide
Artistic inspiration
inspiration, featuring prominently in art, literature and music.
Direct: ecosystem diversity influences cultural diversity; the
physical environment of rivers and associated natural
Cultural diversity, cultural
features influences poetry, art and music, with corresponding
heritage and geoheritage
health and welfare benefits to individuals. In cities, rivers can
values
be an accessible focus for communities (Bolund and
Hunhammar, 1999)
Direct: society benefits from knowledge of fluvial
Knowledge
geomorphology through applied engineering and river
systems/knowledge
management. Records of past climatic and environmental
capital
changes (e.g. flood histories, heavy metal contamination) are
archived in floodplain deposits (Gray, 2011).
780
781
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 41
782
Table 5: Direct and indirect contributions of fluvial geomorphological processes to specific
783
provisioning ecosystem services (Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999; Thorp et al., 2010; Dufour
784
et al., 2011; Gordon and Barron 2013; Hill et al., 2014)
Provisioning services comprise material and energy produced by ecosystems that are
consumed by society (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).
ECOSYSTEM SERVICE
CONTRIBUTION BY FLUVIAL GEOMORPHOLOGICAL
PROCESSES
Direct: water in rivers and streams enables extraction. Water
supply in headwater catchments of the USA was valued at
Fresh water
$245 /ha/yr (Hill et al., 2014).
Indirect: a source supporting water-dependant habitats, biota
and ecosystem processes.
Direct: channel flow and hydraulic head enable hydropower
Renewable energy
development.
Direct: extraction of building and industrial materials (e.g.
Mineral resources
sands, gravels and clays).
Food, fibre and fuel
Indirect: supply of biodiversity products generated in river and
Genetic resources
riparian habitats including floodplains (e.g. commercial or
recreational fish, reeds, vegetables grown on floodplains). In
many situations river and riparian ecosystems have higher
productivity than surrounding areas (Dufour et al., 2011).
Biochemicals & medicines
Arthington et al. (2010, p.2) suggest the biochemical and
fibres from wetland and riparian systems are “…critically
important to human welfare and livelihoods in many parts of
the world”.
Direct: Water channels are directly exploited for transport,
Transport
including by vessels and for floating logs and other goods.
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 42
However, geomorphological processes also result in siltation,
necessitating dredging.
785
786
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 43
787
Table 6: Indicators used to assess ecosystems services provided by a lowland
788
floodplain (after Posthumus et al., 2010).
FUNCTION
GOOD OR
INDICATOR
UNIT
Agricultural
Gross output: total agricultural
£/ha/yr
production
production (arable and livestock)
Financial
Net margin: financial returns from
return
different land-based options,
SERVICE
£/ha/yr
estimates of fixed and variable costs.
Net margins included payments
under the Environmental Stewardship
Production
scheme and Common Agricultural
Policy
Employment Labour: annual labour requirements
Soil quality
man
for each land use type
hours/ha/yr
Soil carbon stock: estimated at
kg C/ha
equilibrium for each scenario
Floodwater
Time-to-fill capacity: ratio of storage
storage
volume of the floodplain to discharge
Days
in the river
Regulation
Water
Nutrient leaching: estimates of
quality
negative impact of nutrients leaching
kg NO3/ha/yr
from floodplains associated with
agricultural production
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 44
Greenhouse Greenhouse gas emissions:
kg CO2 equiv.
gas balance
ha/yr
accounts for the release of carbon
dioxide and methane
Habitat
Habitat conservation value: based
provision
on regional and national importance
score
of habitat created
Habitat
Wildlife
Species conservation value: based
score
on the value of habitats to species
listed in the UK Biodiversity Action
Plan
Transport
Risk exposure road infrastructure:
£/ha/yr
costs associated with transport
disruption due to flooding
Settlement
Risk exposure residential
£/ha/yr
properties: costs associated with
Carrier
damage to residential properties
Space for
Proportion of area annually
water
inundated by fluvial flood: area of
proportion
the indicative floodplain/ total area of
the floodplain x annual flood
probability
Recreation
Potential recreation use: based on
score
density of public rights of way,
Information
cultural value of land uses, proximity
of alternative similar sites, relative to
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 45
population within 3km of the site
Landscape
Landscape value: based on
score
consistency of alternative land use
with the vision statement for
designated Joint Character Areas
(JCAs)
789
790
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 46
791
Table 7: Levels of ecosystem service associated with attributes for six functional
792
process zones (FPZs) (after Thorp et al., 2010, merging their ‘Natural ecosystem
793
benefits’ and ‘Anthropogenic services’ categories) (H=high, M=medium, L=low).
Constricted
Meandering
Braided
Anastomosting
Leveed
Reservoir
L
M
L
H
L
M
Water supply
MH
M
L
M
H
H
Recreation
LM
LM
L
H
L
H
L
M
L
H
H
H
H
M
L
M
H
H
L
M
M
H
L
H
L
LM
LM
H
L
H
Water storage
L
LM
L
H
L
H
Sediment storage
L
M
M
H
L
H
L
M
L
H
L
M
L
LM
H
H
L
M
Ecosystem
Services
Food and fibre
production (excl.
agricultural crops)
Disturbance and
natural hazard
mitigation
Transportation
Primary and
secondary
productivity
Nutrient cycling
and carbon
sequestration
Habitat for wildlife
(indicated by
biodiversity)
Hydrogeomorphic
attributes
Shoreline
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 47
complexity ratio
(shoreline
length/downstream
length)
Relative number of
L
L
H
HM
L
L
L
LM
M
H
L
LM
M
M
L
H
M
H
L
MH
M
H
L
L
channels
Functional habitats
within channels
Channel/island
permanence
Floodplain size
and connectivity
with main channel
794
795
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 48
796
Table 8: Lessons learned about the three principal challenges from case studies
797
Case studies
Challenge 1:
Challenge 2:
Challenge 3:
understanding,
appropriate
demonstration
collaboration and
quantification and
tools
mapping
(i)_River
Greater resilience,
Articulation of
Case studies need
rehabilitation and
acceptability and net
multiple benefits to
to be accessible and
ecosystem services
benefits arise from
stakeholder
communicated to
rehabilitation
communities need
promote
addressing multiple
not be quantitative,
mainstreaming of
ecosystem services
but needs to be
good practice
representative of
likely outcomes
(ii)_Floodplain
Effective
Metrics of
Case studies of
management and
management of
ecosystem service
different ecosystem
ecosystem services
floodplains can
outcomes are
service outcomes
produce trade-offs
necessary to inform
resulting from
and synergies
decision-making
alternative floodplain
between multiple
management can
ecosystem service
inform better
outcomes,
decision-making
demonstrating the
importance of
stakeholder
involvement
(iii)_Mapping
Mapping ecosystem
Spatial
Mapping of both
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 49
ecosystem services
services supply and
representation of
conflicts and
demand can inform
ecosystem service
synergistic
collaborative
outcomes can lead
outcomes can be
decision-making
to better-informed
useful in supporting
governance
participatory
decisions
798
Realising the value of fluvial geomorphology; Page 50